NYU Press

Chapter Title: Culture

Chapter Author(s): Arlene Dávila

Book Title: Keywords for Latina/o Studies

Book Editor(s): Deborah R. Vargas, Nancy Raquel Mirabal and Lawrence La Fountain-
Stokes
Published by: NYU Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt1pwtbpj.15

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

NYU Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Keywords for
Latina/o Studies

This content downloaded from

65.51.58.192 on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:50:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
with Western and modernist culture), or alternatively

11 with the ethos of a people, or a folk tradition that ema-

nates authentically from a “People” and is linked to a
Culture particular location, for instance, with a politically or
Arlene Dávila geographically bounded group, region, or nation-state.
This last definition has tended to link definitions of cul-
ture with “bounded” collectivities in ways that inhibit
understandings of culture as fluid and shared by groups
Culture is one of the most contested concepts for that may be diasporically spread and not bounded in
students and scholars to handle, and even more time and space, as are Latinas/os (Gupta and Ferguson
so when approaching it from a Latina/o studies 1997). In this way, Latina/o studies, which is neither
perspective. The word has different meanings and limited to a single identifiable “culture” nor spans a spe-
manifestations whether it is defined in terms of values, cifically bounded location, represents a direct challenge
objectified in terms of material representations, or to dominant conceptualizations of culture as static, ho-
equated with “civilization.” Yet when thinking about mogenous, and unchanging by prompting us to analyze
the concept of culture from a Latina/o perspective, Latinas/os as historically constituted and fed by immi-
matters of power and hierarchies of value come gration and transnational processes.
immediately to the forefront. In particular, a Latina/o A Latina/o studies perspective also sheds light on
studies perspective challenges common assumptions of the abiding tension between particularizing and uni-
homogeneity, consensus, authenticity, and ahistoricity versalizing definitions of culture—the former evoking
that are continuously associated with the term while plurality and difference and the latter a homogeneous
also foregrounding the political reverberations and (Western) civilizing project—which have preoccupied
deployments of more static definitions of “culture” in anthropologists for decades. Within this framework,
a variety of social movements. In other words, Latina/o marginal cultures have often been identified as “too
studies highlights the concept of culture in some of its particular” and “lacking culture” or civilization or alter-
most contested deployments and manifestations, first by natively as having “too much culture” and hence little
foregrounding the diversity of culture(s) entailed in the civilization. This evokes the tension between culture
very concept of Latinas/os, alongside the many political and citizenship at the heart of the concept of cultural
and strategic mobilizations that are also being carried citizenship (Flores and Benmayor 1998). This idea is
through and in the name of a single or objectified fed by the recognition that national state projects work
Latina/o “culture.” After all, Latina/o is a panethnic by equating citizenship with normativity in ways that
identity made up of diverse racial, ethnic, and national make dominant cultures “invisible” while racial and
constituents, each of which could be simultaneously ethnic minorities are rendered hyper-visible (Rosaldo
recognized as having its own “identifiable” culture. 1993). In this way, visible culture (or ethnicity) is best
Indeed, classical and anthropological definitions understood as being constituted by those positioned
of culture have differentially equated it with civiliza- “at the border of empire,” that is, by subjects whose
tion (as in “Culture” with capital C—often associated visibility is defined in relation to whatever dominant

40

This content downloaded from

65.51.58.192 on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:50:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
definition of normativity obtains for a particular na- regards to specific interests. This is culture as articulation
tional culture, for instance in regards to religion, race, and “boundary of difference” (Appadurai 1996) among
language, and so on (B. Williams 1989). other accounts of culture that treat it not as a given but
This tension between the ways in which culture as socially constituted, objectified, and mobilized for a
and citizenship have been oppositionally conceived variety of political ends. A variety of Latina/o cultural
within modernist/nationalist projects is a key reason and social movements is predicated on this treatment
why Latina/o culture-based movements are historically of culture, as is a variety of corporate-sponsored “Latino”
linked to anticolonial/anti-imperial projects challeng- identified industries, products, or projects.
ing Eurocentric and dominant U.S. Anglo-Saxon na- Latina/o studies scholars must be vigilant about how
tionalist projects around which proper North American these cultural politics can also engage in processes of
citizenship has been narrowly defined. Against such cultural objectification wherein culture is linked and
conceptualizations, Latina/o culture is consistently defined in relation to material objects, expressions, and
deemed as faulty, foreign, and/or a threat to the “purity” traditions that can be contained, studied, or exhibited.
of the dominant U.S. national community (Santa Ana While this tendency helps to identify and demarcate
2002). This positioning informs a range of antihege- culture for political purposes, it can also contribute to
monic movements of cultural assertion and reevalua- ahistorical and essentialist definitions that limit culture
tion launched in response and as a challenge and aimed to particularized material objects or embodiments that
at reevaluating the value of aspects of Latina/o culture can in turn serve as bases of exclusion and discrimina-
that are consistently denigrated in mainstream culture, tion according to judgments about the greater or lesser
with the rise of Latina/o studies and ethnic studies as value and authenticity of different expressions or elabo-
valuable epistemological spaces for knowledge produc- rations that do not fit more sanctioned definitions of
tion providing good examples of this trend. The hierar- culture. One example is when we reduce Latina/o cul-
chies embedded in the culture/civilization dyad are also ture to a particular language be it English or Spanish or
a reason why many Latina/o cultural movements—the Spanglish, or to a particular whitened “Latin look” that
Nuyorican and Chicano movements, for instance—have excludes Latinas/os who are Indigenous or Afro-Latinas/
tended to focus on the reevaluation of some of the most os, or belong to a particular location or class, as in the
debased elements of Latinidad, for instance, by rescuing tendency to think of urban Latinas/os as more “authen-
its African and Indigenous roots or elements of popu- tic” than suburban ones. In contrast, there is the impe-
lar culture (Ybarra-Frausto 1991; Y. Ramírez 2005; Pu- tus to recognize culture through more “ideological” and
lido 2006). Most powerfully, particularistic definitions “behavioral” approximations, as beliefs, worldviews, or
of culture can lead to the equation of “culture” with ways of being, or as ever-changing forms of everyday life
manifestations of ethnic or racial identity, such as na- and popular culture that are alive and resistant to iden-
tionalist identifications, be it Mexican, Colombian, or tification and “objectification.” Yet, when elaborating
Puerto Rican, or more Pan-Latino identifications. These these definitions, we also need to be aware of how these
become one (or more) among other identities that are treatments can also be used to reproduce exclusions,
treated as a goal or an end in itself that can and should as in the association of Latina/o culture with particu-
be safeguarded, promoted, marketed, or undermined in lar values that reproduce sexism or heteronormativity.

CuLture arlene dáVila 41

This content downloaded from

65.51.58.192 on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:50:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Additionally elaborations of culture as “ways of life,” involving projects of uplift and elitization. In my work,
beliefs, or affective states can also lead to more celebra- I have contrasted the different goals and objectives of
tory and sometimes naïve conceptualizations of culture marketing culture for economic development, which fa-
as always resistant, in ways that veil culture’s constant vors definitions of culture cleansed from ethnic memo-
engagement with power and the ways in which culture ries and politics, with those that are part of larger asser-
in all of its expressions—be they discursive, ideological, tions of identity, place, belonging, and inclusion. These
emotive, or material—can become the subject of appro- political deployments remind us that peoples and cul-
priations, transformations, and articulations with dif- tures are never easily reducible into commodities, even
ferent political projects and interests. in a heightened privatizing context.
Indeed, Latina/o studies scholars must be especially In sum, to fully understand the stakes involved in
attentive to all the different central treatments of cul- definitions of “culture,” we must engage in the produc-
ture, which are constituted and deployed materially tion, circulation, and consumption of culture, as well
and discursively to frame particular politics. This is as in matters of political economy, alongside an under-
one of the reasons why Gramscian conceptualizations standing of the different political projects involved in
of processes of cultural hegemony have been so use- its making. This is not in opposition to appreciating
ful and popular in Latina/o studies analysis, especially the “intangible values” that are also associated with
in approaches that highlight the centrality of cultural the concept of culture, be it as a reservoir of identity
politics as a defining element for assessing power and or as the realm of the aesthetic or of affective values.
politics (Morley and Chen 1996; Álvarez, Dagnino, and The issue is the importance of appreciating the com-
Escobar 1998). plexities involved with the term and the need for in-
Foremost, Latina/o studies scholars must be vigilant terdisciplinary approaches that fully grapple with all
about the relationship between culture and capital, that culture evidences, but also with all that it can also
and the ways in which in our present neoliberal and help to hide.
mass-mediated societies, culture industries are always One final consideration is that in our neoliberal and
involved in the appropriation, shaping, and dissemi- colorblind society, culture is also increasingly used as
nation of more mainstream and sanitized definitions synonym for difference, and as a veil for discussions of
of culture. In other words, our analyses necessitate race and difference. This context beckons us to place
engagements that incorporate the appropriations, cir- race and racialization processes at the heart of the con-
culations, and transformations of Latina/o culture(s), cept of culture to expose the hierarchies that may be re-
and the particular trajectories involved in any cultural produced or veiled through this term. One example is
product or creation in order to resist more static defi- when appeals to Latina/o culture are deployed to erase
nitions of culture. Careful consideration also needs to racial heterogeneity, or when ethnic unity is summoned
be paid to projects that insist on treating culture as a to avoid engagements with intra-Latina/o and intereth-
conduit of progress and development devoid of dis- nic racisms. Important keywords that are closely and
tinct identifications—”culture” masked in attending sometimes mutually related to the concept of culture
discourses of globalization and treated as a medium of include art, citizenship, folklore, food, race, cultural
uplift, industry, entrepreneurship, and progress, or as politics, hegemony, values, and worldviews.

42 CuLture arlene dáVila

This content downloaded from

65.51.58.192 on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:50:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms